And then, Facebook summarily deletes the post, blocks Curt for another 30 days for the umpteenth time, and of course, my shares of the post are gone as though they never existed, akin to Soviet Era expungements.

Curt, of course, had the wherewithal to save his work so that he was able to put it on the Propertarianism blog. I’m crossposting it here.

The female of our species, or more correctly, the female mind in our species, is extremely susceptible to individual psychosis and solipsism, and even more so, herd panic, trend and consensus; and verbalizing those behaviors by drama, outburst, disapproval, shaming, ridicule, rallying, gossiping, and reputation destruction that never ceases.

This is the reason why women’s testimony has been discounted throughout history; why the cancer of abrahamism was spread through women; why women defected against their men and their civilization yet again, to feminism-postmodernism; and why there are continuous calls for “women must be heard”; and then, not surprisingly, counter-to-all-evidence that “women must be believed”. The female lacks the degree of male agency because she is more dependent upon the panic of herd than the hunting of the pack.

It is rather obvious that once given the franchise under the presumption of agency, that women took out their anger on the church in europe, and on men in america. It’s rather obvious that as much as marxism was designed to appeal to and rally men at the bottom, that feminism and postmodernism were designed to appeal to and rally women as was christianity. It is rather obvious that women’s urge to nest and preen are more easily manipulated by advertising marketing and media.

But Truth is Truth. The feminine mind lacks agency regardless of the sex of its bearer. And we cannot both preserve our civilization which is the originator of truth, reason, science, and all that comes from it by once again submitting to the herd of the female in this modern era as we did in the ancient.

“Herd Panic”, and “herd consensus”, as well as the series solipsism, psychosis, and disapproval, shaming, ridicule, outburst, rallying gossiping and reputation destruction as a means of obscuring the truth due to lack of agency and fear of falling out of sync with the herd, must become part of our conscious vocabulary and argument such that we bring the distinction between lack of agency, falsehood and fear, versus agency, truth and reason.

Lacking agency means you are not yet human and therefore not worthy of or capable of reciprocity any more than is a child – but require parenting.

It is truth that in modernity we have greater prosperity and as such greater ability to absorb the damage of the feminine mind than in the past. But that reservoir is not limitless.

That same prosperity however does leave us a choice: we can oppress one another, or we can revolt and separate, and develop feminine (failing) dysgenic orders and return to the animals and another dark age, or masculine competitive eugenic orders, that will continue our transcendence.

It’s time to choose which of those consequences we will pursue.

It’s my purpose here to just post it, not provide any supporting or detracting commentary. That can easily be done by everyone in comments. Rather, my purpose is to simply promulgate by other means that which Facebook deems its account holders and content creators incapable of drawing their own judgments about and arguing accordingly if they see fit.

Women are wonderful, and superior at the same things men are not. The problem was extending the franchise without producing a market for differences between the genders in the production of commons. We created houses for the aristocracy (monarchy), nobility (lords), middle class (commons). But when we added labor (labor), and then added women (women), we did not add houses for them, and thereby failed to grasp what we had done: created a market for the production of commons between the classes that prohibited the abuse by any in gaining majority. The problem was, that people become increasingly incompetent in matters of the day as their responsibilities decline. So without requirements for children and property it is almost impossible to create a civil discourse and market between the classes – since the people in the market for commons must demonstrate prior ability to succeed in markets of voluntary cooperation.

So there we have it. Discuss all you like, adults. The post remains published.

Reader Interactions

Comments

Would be nice if men and women did not demonize one another…each has skill sets the other can benefit from so why not embrace the differences and stop trivializing or “blaming” them. You want a family boys, good luck without us. Growing up, it was ingrained to me that boys were more skilled in athletics, hunting, shooting, etc. As an adult, I learned it was all bravado…women typically make better fisherpeople, hunters and target shooters (I’m a great example because my DH was kind enough to take me on his trips). I know there are kind, smart, non judging guys because I married one. I wish there were more of them—assured and secure in their masculinity that they are not threatened and are happy to see people (both genders) succeed. Men and women ARE different; that’s the fun part. Let’s not use it as a divisive tool.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Look around. Pay attention. It’s practically a crime just to be a man now. There has been a shift and now women are the ones demonizing men. How about women admit there are differences between men and women and not use it as a divisive tool, instead of claiming there are no differences at all.

Hell, you can even make claims about people 30 years on without a shred of evidence and completely destroy a man’s life and reputation.

Women want to feel manly pride, be one of the boys, then ultimately to extinguish all manly pride.

BigRob, What a shame that you have such negative connotations of women. Yes, there has been a shift. After 5000+ years of men treating women as subordinates, they are speaking up. God forbid that men have to listen to them as equals **gasp** Did you not read my post that I (we) acknowledge there are differences…but just as women do not want to hear (or have people believe) the slanderous/negative comments posted about women as are displayed here, why do men think they are above commentary on themselves?
Women have only wanted to “be one of the boys” because it was the only club in town…and now that a new door has opened, men want to minimize, belittle and make it less valued? Women want to feel womanly pride and enjoy and support men in getting their manly pride (unlike the reverse). I’m not sure who wronged you but trust me, women aren’t out to get you. Equality doesn’t mean anything more than EQUAL.
I’m sure the Arabian law that finally “let” women drive without having them stoned is viewed by men as having their balls cut off…because in mens’ heads, they can’t control them anymore?? Same goes for a lot of old-fashioned laws that won’t allow a woman to flourish…not at the expense of a man but to the detriment of her own success.
As an aside, I agree with you…30+ year claims in this situation are sad. What the dems should be focusing in on is how he lied under oath about stolen documents and his briefs on Roe V Wade and how he represents that commentary for his “job interview.” Lies should not be tolerated in a judge, much less in a Supreme Court Judge. Having said that…that you are upset and angered that this man had the right to treat women as he did and they don’t get to tell the world what a creep he was (allegedly)…sounds like picking sides.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Wallycat, nature has a natural order. Humans may pervert nature’s order for short periods of time but rest assured, in the long run nature’s order will prevail. Look around and observe the non-human mammal behavors to discover what nature has in store for us.

The judiciary committee should have focused on the briefs K wrote and then swore (oath) that that is not what he actually believes (so he would be voted in). That is called lying under oath…or perjury by any other name. Though I don’t condone 17 year olds drinking to oblivion (where were the principles and parents??), asking an alcoholic 17 year old what they remember is ridiculous. Of course he doesn’t remember; heck, he can’t remember puking in someone’s car even though there are witnesses to that and letters he wrote warning neighbors it would happen. Lying that you do not have stolen documents = bad. Lying that Roe V wade you believe cannot be overturned, knowing that you plan to do it (from discussions in the republican party), claiming you didn’t drink when you clearly did, lying about what the slang terms were (all under oath)…to me, that speaks of his moral character. He may be going to AA and not showing off to “his boys” anymore, but I don’t think he has the moral character for a lifetime appointment. I’m certainly not alone. I wish they’d leave the assault stuff out of this discussion.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

what does that even mean? that facts aren’t facts and people who point them out need to be bullied? Not a problem. I’ll stop visiting here…maybe the fact that Kavanaugh’s intro under oath said that “what goes around, comes around” and that the clintons were out to get him….well, nothing like having an unbiased judge.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

I think there are some serious problems with Doolittle’s statement; for example, “This is the reason why women’s testimony has been discounted throughout history” – referring to the manner in which women raise a voice in objection. This may be looking at history backwards. For example, in the Salem witch trials, we see otherwise intelligent people (men and women) buy into hysteria exactly because it was expertly dramatized by women. Women DO have a knack for drama, but it is arguable whether they developed this because they saw how effective it was or because it was something “natural” in them. My main contention with the Doolittle statement is the idea that “the feminine mind lacks agency”. Agency is taking care of one’s responsibility – so, why do some women AND men want to reverse Roe v. Wade? That is just one example. Women’s agency has been shackled for some time, by both themselves and by others. The real issue is that there are people in society that still believe women shouldn’t be taken seriously. And you know what the real bitch is? Women prove them right – if more women/girls spent time reading, reflecting, and contemplating the world instead of getting cosmetic surgery to look like their Selfie on Instagram, then they’d be more worthy of being taken seriously.

Reply link does not work in your browser because JavaScript is disabled.Reply

Primary Sidebar

ABOUT

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free the Animal began in 2003 and as of 2018, contains over 4,600 posts and 110,000 comments from readers. I cover a lot of ground, blogging what I wish...from health, diet, and lifestyle to philosophy, politics, social issues, and cryptocurrency. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances in life. [Read more...]

Please consider supporting this Blog by CLICKING HERE whenever you shop Amazon. Costs you nothing but sure does help out.